Quite good educational film, good Soviet tanks for 1941-1942 .В present time in Russia find the Soviet tanks in the rivers, pull out from water, they repair also in working order. An echo of the last war....
Soviets had and still have SHIT for armor , the only reason they pushed the germans back was the german fighting a war on two fronts. Its a shame the Germans didnt wake up and see the road to Moscow was wide open and go stright to it and crush them. Stalin was just as bad if not worse than Hitler ever was.
To bad we didnt listen to Patton and give the germans back there weapons and let them finish off the USSR
And you know, figure out the number of tanks destroyed by aircraft doesn't make a lot of sense. Ennemi planes domination forces you to produce more AA- armoured vehicles to the detriment of overall tanks, to hide yourself most of the time, and limits your offensives.
Any little-bit skilled military knows that one of the absolute priorities to have chances to defeat his opponent is to get the sky control... Come on ! Pfff.
@bartime100 Check your numbers again. They produced 57,000 during the war and nearly 85,000 overall. Don't let the facts get in the way of your ignorance of history LOL
It's in the statistics, I let you ckeck this out... You're right for the 85.000 productions until 1958. But the tank which has the record of releases in WW2 is the sherman with 50.000. So 57.000 T-34...Mmmmh...
You're true that Soviets armour corps had heavy losses. But it's not due to T-34 quality. Up to the end of 1942, T-34 was much superior to any german tank. Some of the main problems are the lack of armoured transport vehicles for infantery. So infantery climbed on T-34. But when artillery/mortars begin to open fire, T-34s carried infantery took cover giving no protection against infantery. And artilly for the same reason couldnt help T-34's most of the time because they were late
Actually the T-34 has already lost most of it's edge by mid 1942 as it is by then that we start seeing panzer IV and StuG III appear with the long 7.5cm L43 main gun which outperformed the T-34 and KV-1 main guns, pak 40 and marder anti tank weapons are also appearing in larger numbers.
Russian lost 6600 T-34 in 1942.
A soviet wartime study of T-34 losses revealed the following, the percentage of T-34 knocked out
4.7% by 20mm, 10% by 37mm, 7.5% by short 50mm, 54.3% by long 50mm ( possible also includes some long 75mm ), 10.1% by 75mm, 3.4% by 88mm, 2.9% by 105mm and 7.1% by unknown cause.
Ok maybe... But still,there were big logistic problems, the lack of accompaniement vehicles for infantery and artillery support.
What's more, until early 1944, they underwent the Luftwaffe's aircrafts attacks which were still dominating the sky.
The tanks heavy losses undergone are more due to the weaknesses of Red Army's other fields (logistic, aviation, commanding..) than their tanks' quality
It has a lot to do with the quality of their tanks, also aircraft are the worst weapon with which to knock out enemy tanks so don't try and use the luftwaffe as an excuse for the heavy russian losses.
Though you are right that the russian traning didn't hep much to improve their situation.
In 1944 with the strategic initiatieve on the russian side ans huge operational losses for the germans the russians still lost 23500 AFV in that year.
Pfff man you joke... Hans Ulrich Rudel destroyed 500 soviet tanks with his Ju-87.In Normandy, Typhoons, P-47, P-38, Tempest massacred Panzerdivisions, a P-47 even neutralized (with just one 0.50 bullet..) a Tiger 1 by shooting the engine, the 8th Army Air Force pulverized Panzer Lehr. The armour's top and engine are thin and very vulnerable, even to minus-20mm guns ... An aircraft domination reduces strongly reinforcements and logistic to support tanks. Let's be serious...
Oh please for the love of god get your head of of whatever false info your reading from and get real proper material.
Reasearch done by the British and US following Normandy showed that aircraft were the poorest weapon for atatcking tanks, rockets had less than 4% chance of knocking out an enemy tank.
During Operation Goodwood the 2nd Tactical Air Force and 9th USAAF claimed 257 and 134 tanks, respectively, as destroyed. Of these, 222 were claimed by Typhoon pilots using RPs
In the Goodwood area a total of 456 German heavily armoured vehicles were counted, and 301 were examined in detail. They found only 10 could be attributed to Typhoons using RPs (less than 3% of those claimed). Even worse, only 3 out of 87 APC examined could be attributed to air lunched RPs
During the German counterattack at Mortain the 2nd Tactical Air Force and 9th USAAF claimed to have destroyed 140 and 112 tanks, respectively.
It turns out that only 177 German tanks and assault guns participated in the attack, which is 75 less tanks than claimed as destroyed. Of these 177 tanks, 46 were lost and only 9 were lost to aircraft attack. This is again around 4% of those claimed.
.50 bullets were not capable of piercing a medium tanks, let alone a heavy tanks top armour, if it knock-out the engine then it was a fluke, a one in a million chance.
When the results of the various Normandy operations are compiled, it turns out that no more than 100 German tanks were lost in the entire campaign from hits by aircraft launched ordnance.
Considering the Germans lost around 2200 tanks, tank destroyers and assault guns in the Normandy campaign, less than 5% were lost directly to air attack.
Ok maybe. But tell me why they were obliged to move only by night ? mmh ? and how many supplying vehicles and soldiers neutralized (especially in Falaise....)
You must also take into consideration that aircraft supremacy can generaly massacre reinforcement and supplying for tanks, when this last ones have no longer ammos and fuel...
You're the only person I know (and I know many people specialized in WW2) to say russian tanks are bad..
There are plenty of others who will say the same as I, that the T-34 is over-rated thanks to shows like those on the military channel, the T-34 tactical records shows this.
If you want to be taken serious then I suggest you start by getting better reasources and stop posting info that is false.
Even now your already backtracking your false claim of aircraft devastating tanks.
One point : It's not difficult at all to get optics and good anti-tank canon. It's just very expansive and it wasn't the Soviet politic towards their military material.
The Panther's canon was really terrific and indeed it could destroy T-34/85 at 1500 m with no problems.
But its effective when U are in an open area (step, deserts...) but when it's in a city or something like that, the only advantage of the Panther is washed-out.
T-34 has more autonomy, has more endurance, is much cheaper.
Russians accomplished the feat to instal diesel engine into T-34 and all their tanks. That was really an exploit and the toughest thing to do.
They were going around pointing out all the weak spots in the tank’s defenses. It must have been a terrifying thing to face a tank with no experience, but I am told that once you know how to deal with them a tank has vulnerabilities.
For tank on tank warfare the German's 88mm & 75mm high velocity were their ace in the hole. High velocity requires long barrels so their tanks lacked maneuverability in cities, they never should have gone into Stalingrad with armor, just shell it and move on.
the KV MG position was ridiculously close to the driver, the MG gunner shooting would disturb the driver. its turret was also not user friendly for 3 fighting crew, poor all-around vision for commander. Exhaust to drive / move freely, steering problems. poor coordination for mass attack. unhandy ammo, under firepower. Turret of KV2 couldn't transverse on steep slopes but good for invert bombs! Armor too heavy for SPG role, short & low velocity gun not for AT role, large profile as pak target.
Panter design was copied from T-34/76. The reason is - tehnologicaly advanced incline armor. T-34/76 wasn't the equal rival to Tiger and Panter. But new generation tanks T-34/85, Su-100, IS-2 was able to match.
T34 tank is far better than the Sherman tank. T34 is ugly but very much effective tank suited for fast offensive battle. But it was no match for the latest Panther tank in any categories. Panther tanks was only defeated by the vast numbers of T34 in combat.
@AnikinTal T34 is not that ugly, the Sherman is much uglier! the T34-76 actually is very beautiful and cute, the T34-85 looks also very sexy and the IS-2 looks like a big grizzly bear!
But the Panther is a BILLION times more beautiful than any other russian tank oever made :D
The Sherman was actually a Pretty good tank. Its reputation as a "Fire lighter" was earned early on from unsafe ammo storage. That problem was fixed with wet ammo storage, something I do not believe any Russian tanks used. The Sherman's armor wasn't that bad, in fact its frontal armor was radically slopped. The issue was the weak 75mm cannon that was fine for North Africa, but poor against newer models of German tanks. continued...
This was largely to do with the US army doctrine, which called for Tanks to act as infantry support, while a seperate group of tank destroyers would target enemy armor. This inspired US high command to stick to the 75mm gun on the Sherman because of its superior High explosive damage against buildings, bunkers, etc. The 76mm anti tank gun was not issued until field commanders stared screaming bloody murder. the 76mm had a tungstan steel armor penatrator round.
@AK49Gunner The Sherman was easy to maintain and repair and the US was geared to mass production. The poor ammo stowage was not remedied by the wet stowage and Ammudamp. It only impeded the fire or explosion for a few seconds. The armor was extremely bad with only 2.5 inches of flat armor on the sides. The glacis plate had 3 inches, but in spite of the slope, it had too much junk to keep an enemy round to glancing off. The gun travel lock and ridge at the top of the tranny case were bad.
3 inchs of armor doesn't sound like much compared to modern tanks, but the Tiger only had 3.9 inches of frontal too. Soviet tanks didn't have safe ammo stowage until very recently, the T-80 is famous for the turret flying into the air when the ammo cooks off. The mean weakness of the Sherman compared to Russian, or German tanks was the poor penetration of the 75mm main gun. The Sherman Firefly was a good tank and a serious threat to a tiger.
@AK49Gunner 3 inches is good if sloped & uncluttered, but as I wrote, the bow design on the Sherman was P-poor. .The Tiger E had 104mm=4 1/6" frontal armor. Yeah, Russians like to stow the ammo in boxes on the turret floor..saw that in Korea, pretty crude. I only worked with E8 Shermans and M-26 for a short time, my combat tank was an M-46 but served on 47,48s .60 and 41s. Generally, turrets will pop off any Russian tank when hit...they just sat on bearings and not fastened down.
@AK49Gunner The Sherman's 75mm gun was designed as a GP=general purpose gun so had a very low MV. The Brit 17 pounder was a Hyper Velocity 76mm and designed for anti tank, so it had a lot of punch,. too bad we didn't have the resources to up-gun more M-4s, but it was an engineerihg nighmare to fit the Sherman turret with that gun. It had to mounted 45% sideways so it could be loaded and turret rear extended for the recoil. Fireflys were only issued one to a company, so it was scarce.
Oh, I thought I was engaging another armchair general. lol I didn't know you had actual experience on the matter. I defer to your expertise.
What is your opinion on the American 76mm and the tungsten AP round?
Do you play Video games? You should try Red Orchestra, it has very realistic infantry and tank combat, right down to shells deflecting, or not, off of armor depending on what angle it hits from.
@AnikinTal lol american tanks was so bad it was better not to put them into combat. russian tanks was allways the best , in quality and quantity. dont mention tiger or any other bigger tanks the produiction was just to small.
@nolifemerc The Sherman was actually a pretty decent tank for WWII. If only they had put a high velocity cannon on it instead of the stubby 75mm. The Firefly killed lots of Tigers and Panthers. The 17 pdr on the Firefly was more powerful than the Tiger 88mm and Panther 75mm. The Shermans were low maintence, fast, and easy to produce. Nearly 50,000 were produced in 4 years, compared to fewer than 6,000 Panthers in 3 years. The T-34 was only superior until early 1943. Panther was much better
Was the Panther the superior to T-34/85 ? Yes but not by much.
Panther is a heavy tank and T-34 a middle tank. Despite this, their armour sickness was nearly the same (75-80mm at the front of the chassis, for the turret it's 90 for T34 and 110 for Panther).
But mecanichaly speaking, no match. T-34 was 10 so much better !!
His canon Zis-53 of 85mm (52.4 calibers) was more than correct against other middle tanks and could penetrate panthers in front at 600/700m, maybe even 900/1000m
@bartime100 You're wrong. The Panther 75mm was a better tank killer than the T-34 85mm. The T-34 76 had no radio and a 2-man turret crew. The proof is the 45,000 T-34 tanks destroyed during WWII. If the T-34 is better, then why were so many destroyed?
T-34/85 still needed to get within 500m to have a chance of knocking out a Panther from the front.
At 500m it could only penetrate 90mm of armour sloepd at 30 degree, Panther had a better slope and better quality armour making it likely to withstand at this distance.
Mmmh. It's not true , T-34 has a better sloped amour (60°), Panther 30° for 80mm' sickness. So T-34 can knock out a Panther further than 500m.
But it doesn't matter, , there were KV/85, later SU-100 which could destroy any german tank at 2000 m (excepted Tiger 2), IS-2 that Panther/Tiger could'nt penetrate at more than 500/600 m and were themselves vulnerable at 1500 m and ISU or SU152, very dangerous too.
How do you get that 30 degree from vertical, Panther sloped at the front 55 degree from vertical so almost the same sloped as the T-34.
T-34 frontal armour is equal to 90mm of flat armour, Panthers is equal to almost 140mm of flat armour.
The 85mm using AP and APBC can only get at max at 500m distance against flat armour a penetration of 111mm, not enough to frontally penetrate the Panther.
Ok i'm false with my number, i have checked it. I admit it.
But tell me please, this is a question of logic, how can you get a vertical armour equivalent of 90 mm for T-34 and 140 for the Panther ?? We are ok to say than its 75 mm for the Soviet and 80 or 85 mm for the German and the T-34 has a little more sloped armour... Your figures are just impossible and unlogical. Sorry.... Check them...
SU-100 penetration after 1000m dropepd very fast only 115mm of flat armour, not enough for the Panther.
IS-2 could be penetrate by panthers or Tiger at 1000m if they aimed for it's weak turret front, poor quality casted armour also means that many IS-2 only had the equivelant of 50 to perhaps 90mm of armour again making them easy targets.
The cinetic energy was superior than the Panther's shell.
115mm at 1000 mm is just a joke. Are you serious ?!
If you made enquiries, you'd learn that this canon penetrates 127 mm at 2000 m and could destroy the Panther's most evolved version at 1500 m in front.
So, please we can exchange but be honnest with the figures...
The figures I use are honest, the problem seems to come in that you are using the stats for it's BR-412D which is a shell that was develloped after WWII.
The BR-412B can be used but it was a rarer shell and I prefer to use the most common shell for comparing guns, they also had a it seemed problems with producing good quality shells for it.
Front hull remained at 45mm thick, the only increase it saw during the war was when it receieved a new turret with thicker frontal armour, this was also the only major increase in weight.
Every source lists it as that, even the technical drawings on the battlefield. ru.
@AnikinTal I'd say they're close to equal. M4 had less armor, but higher quality plate and a much higher level of reliability. Both were fast, moderately armored, and solidly armed, though. it's more an issue of producability--the Sherman was not quite as simple but still easy to make, and it was well-suited to quick flanking operations. The two were built according to different doctrines (T-34 was a massed attack vehicle, Sherman was more of a "cruiser tank"), both were great at their role.
@redreaper2020 SHERMAN IDIOT,WAS A SHIT HIDDING BEFORE NAZIS IN BUSH!!!LOL EVERYONE KNOWS THIS GAY! LIKE EVERY WESTERN TANK SHERMAN IS THE FIRST SHIT CAME FROM USA
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The Russians were shipped a lot of Shermans as well, and used them a lot. They were very popular, as they didn't kill their crew. They had to put guards on them so that the infantry didn't steal the seat leather.
Why would you say something stupid like this? T-34 had slopping armor which Shermans didnt have. T-34 still considered BEST overall tank of WW2. Why would Russians having best tank of WW2 use worthless Shermans which Tigers could shoot through 6 of them with one shell? Do some research about T-34 and Sherman before you make stupid comments like this.
Because the Russians did use M-4 Shermans. It is an historical fact. They also used British Tetrarchs.
In 1941 the 75mm guns of Pz-4 and Stu-3 could defeat KV-1 and T-34, but had to get a very good hit from in close. Early T-34s had 2 man turret, which over loaded the tank commander, lowering his efficiency.
The Panther had a problem of ammunition detonation if hit in the sponson box. Later US Shermans had ethylene glycol water jacket around its ammunition to prevent that problem. Gasoline had little to do with it, though there are many "internet experts" who want that to be the problem. Gasoline actually is hard to detonate, and diesel is easier to detonate! (R+M)/2= octane number!
It was silly to put the "white star" marker right over the ready ammunition rack, but Soviet Shermans didn't do that. US Shermans eventually didn't either, putting mud over the star quickly, and later paint.
You're just another stubborn nerd who refuses to concede that veteran testimonies are worth more than any technical assessment you could make today. Quoting obscure details no one gives a shit about does not make you an authority.
There are lots of "urban legend" or "foxhole rumor" such as ".30 Carbine couldn't shoot through winter clothing" or "Sherman caught on fire because of gas engines". The laws of physics and chemistry are still the same as they were then, so they were tested then, and we can test now, and both find that those particular rumors are false.
RR88 you are right about diesel. That is why diesel engines in modern cars require "glow plugs" to ignite the fuel. Diesel requires a higher temperature for ignition. Older cars to start diesel engines used to require a short period for the plugs to warm the fuel.
Neither Gasoline nor Diesel burn in absence of oxidant. Air-diesel or Air gasoline mixtures can burn, within limits of "richness" and "leanness". A antitank round hit to high explosive ammunition will provide plenty of heat to ignite either, and a hit to fuel tanks provides plenty of energy disperse either into a fuel air cloud. Gasoline has an octane test to assure its resistance to detonation. Diesel has a cetane test to assure its ease of detonation. Those are facts.
Detonation is a process of combustion in which a supersonic shock wave is propagated through a fluid due to an energy release in a reaction zone. It is the more powerful of the two general classes of combustion, the other one being deflagration. Because detonations generate high pressures, they are usually much more destructive than deflagrations.
Ignition of gasoline is easier, but if ammunition is buring, there is plenty of energy for ignition for either. There are two ways hydrocarbon fuel-air combustion can propagate. Deflagration and detonation. Detonation creates a sonic pressure wave which burns other hydrocarbons. Deflagration produces a subsonic burning, which permits the pressure equalize. I suggest you look up Octane and Cetane tests. For this wikipedia is adequate.
In a detonation the shock compresses the material thus increasing the temperature to the point of ignition. The ignited material burns behind the shock and releases energy that supports the shock propagation. This self-sustained detonation wave is different from a deflagration, which propagates at a subsonic rate (i.e., slower than the sound speed in the material itself). Quote from Wikipedia on Detonation.
And if there is a simple leak from the tank due to damage (not detonation from initial impact) then gasoline will ignite when running over the hot engine much faster than the diesel fuel. Since getting out of the vehicle as fast as possible is crucial in those moments, it is obvious a few more seconds to get out is highly valued by the crews and hence their preference for diesel powered engines.
I sure agree with the vulnerabilty of kerosene or lighter (gasoline/petrol/naphalene) fractions. Still none of those is as deadly as the ammunition fire which if it detonates (as it would if hit in Panther or T-34, or early Sherman). Later Shermans had wet storage to douse such fires, but that didn't remedy the great penetration power of all WWII antitank guns, which were able to kill nearly any tank from the right distance and angle.
The Soviet Union's nickname for the M4 medium tank was Emcha because the open-topped figure 4 resembled the Cyrillic letter che or cha (Ч ).
A total of 4,102 M4A2 medium tanks were sent to the U.S.S.R. under Lend-Lease. Of these 2,007 were equipped with the 75 mm gun, and 2,095 carried the 76 mm gun. The total number of Sherman tanks sent to the U.S.S.R. under Lend-Lease represented 18.6 percent of all Lend-Lease Shermans
Lend lease is American military aid to Britain and Russia. Originally ships were provided to Britain in exchange for the leasing of ports and territories for the USA. It was expanded once the US entered the war.
I dont have to dream about it, its an IRON FACT. T-34 is the winning TANK of WW2. There is no arguing about it or discussing. It was solely due to T-34 tank and heroic Russian crews WW2 was won.
They were not very popular since the gasoline engine caught fire much easier than T-34 diesel one... It was just more comfortable for the crew, as long as they did not get shot.
Any proper antitank weapon could kill any tank. The Tiger started as a 'life insurance policy" but by the end of the war was just an over weight immobile target. The panther was almost as mobile as a T-34, but weighed half as much again (but had a slightly better gun). Sherman was best in close quarters where the electric turret traverse guaranteed a first hit, and the 76mm gun was better than the T-34/85 gun in penetration . Cullen hedgerow cutter gave Sherman mobility advantage in hedgrows.
Yeah, they are toys actually, he asks 1.000Reichsmark ;)
Actually (also according description of vid.) he is describing 'special features' of T34/76 (and KV-1) which eventually can be targets for close combat fighting against these tanks (eg. with grenades or heavy explosives)
inbred tanks.....antfya, the germans had nothing to knock these out? Youre nutz! 88 in any application would have knocked the Rapists tanks out...Russian imbreds!
T34 -75 and KV-1 was for nazis forces big surprise.They in this time havent any antytank canon for their destroing. KV-1 and next IS 2 proved stoping all enemy atack .Germans send for their destroing bombarder Stuka.
Russian tanks until the introduction of Faustpatron used their tracks and spead as the prime weaponry. Try to stop it yourself especially if there is a hole bunch of them with regular infantery men on top of it for clowns like you.
@brokencasket It can indeed, there are special grenades designed to this purpose, even normal offensive hand grenades could accomplish the feat, roll a baled charge of stick grenades under, or lay a charge over the engine compartment, fire, and alot of smoke can result from this, causing the crew to abandon their tanks.
@brokencasket Hand grenades do not destroy tanks. If used properly, they kill the bastards driving the tank. If you're super lucky, it could set off the ammunition but that's only if the poor sods inside failed to stow it properly.
i think, everybody is a stupid people (german lovers)
cuz this isnt a T-34, this is a beautiful KV-1
0puest0 2 months ago
@0puest0 until 1:45 they show a t-34.then comes the KV1 !
Molletovcocktail 1 month ago
@Molletovcocktail .
Yes ! but everybody say the KV-1 with first turret isnt beautiful !!! and they think that this is a T-34
Grettins
0puest0 1 month ago
Quite good educational film, good Soviet tanks for 1941-1942 .В present time in Russia find the Soviet tanks in the rivers, pull out from water, they repair also in working order. An echo of the last war....
Vanyaaynav 3 months ago
cool.. how they would stop filming then paint area's to show areas..
masterod1 5 months ago
Soviets had and still have SHIT for armor , the only reason they pushed the germans back was the german fighting a war on two fronts. Its a shame the Germans didnt wake up and see the road to Moscow was wide open and go stright to it and crush them. Stalin was just as bad if not worse than Hitler ever was.
To bad we didnt listen to Patton and give the germans back there weapons and let them finish off the USSR
xXMedic37Xx 6 months ago
its very interesting what he says..
TheRedSkin2009 7 months ago
And you know, figure out the number of tanks destroyed by aircraft doesn't make a lot of sense. Ennemi planes domination forces you to produce more AA- armoured vehicles to the detriment of overall tanks, to hide yourself most of the time, and limits your offensives.
Any little-bit skilled military knows that one of the absolute priorities to have chances to defeat his opponent is to get the sky control... Come on ! Pfff.
bartime100 7 months ago
But russian designers did the hardest by :
1°)installing diesel engines
2°)producing well and sick-armoured vehicles while maintaining a raisonnable weight
°IS-2 : sloped frontal armour=120mm, turret =160mm. Weight : 46 T
°Tiger 1 : non-sloped frontal armour=100mm, turret=110 mm Weight : 57 T
°T-34/85 : sloped frontal armour=75mm, turret=90mm Weight : 32 T
°Panther : sloped frontal armour=80mm, turret=110mm Weight : 44,8T.
Nothing to add
bartime100 8 months ago
@bartime100 Russian tanks were cramped and that reduced the effectiveness of the crews. The proof is in the 45,000 T-34 tanks destroyed.
Nothing to add.
jackzero99 8 months ago
@jackzero99
Something to add : Soviets produced 40,000 T-34 tanks in WW2.....
But let's forget this it doesn't matter (lol)
I've NEVER NEVER NEVER said T-34/85 was better than Panther. Read all the messages please...
I just pointed that it was a good tank too, although it's globally a little bit inferior to Panther.
And where did you see I said that Panther wasn't a better tank that T-34/85 ????? Guys be honnests Come on !
bartime100 8 months ago
@bartime100 Check your numbers again. They produced 57,000 during the war and nearly 85,000 overall. Don't let the facts get in the way of your ignorance of history LOL
jackzero99 8 months ago
@jackzero99
"Ignorance of History", yes if you want.
It's in the statistics, I let you ckeck this out... You're right for the 85.000 productions until 1958. But the tank which has the record of releases in WW2 is the sherman with 50.000. So 57.000 T-34...Mmmmh...
bartime100 8 months ago
@bartime100 stay ignorant then
jackzero99 8 months ago
@jackzero99
You're true that Soviets armour corps had heavy losses. But it's not due to T-34 quality. Up to the end of 1942, T-34 was much superior to any german tank. Some of the main problems are the lack of armoured transport vehicles for infantery. So infantery climbed on T-34. But when artillery/mortars begin to open fire, T-34s carried infantery took cover giving no protection against infantery. And artilly for the same reason couldnt help T-34's most of the time because they were late
bartime100 8 months ago
@bartime100
Actually the T-34 has already lost most of it's edge by mid 1942 as it is by then that we start seeing panzer IV and StuG III appear with the long 7.5cm L43 main gun which outperformed the T-34 and KV-1 main guns, pak 40 and marder anti tank weapons are also appearing in larger numbers.
Russian lost 6600 T-34 in 1942.
A soviet wartime study of T-34 losses revealed the following, the percentage of T-34 knocked out
Dreachon 8 months ago
@Dreachon
4.7% by 20mm, 10% by 37mm, 7.5% by short 50mm, 54.3% by long 50mm ( possible also includes some long 75mm ), 10.1% by 75mm, 3.4% by 88mm, 2.9% by 105mm and 7.1% by unknown cause.
Dreachon 8 months ago
@Dreachon
Ok maybe... But still,there were big logistic problems, the lack of accompaniement vehicles for infantery and artillery support.
What's more, until early 1944, they underwent the Luftwaffe's aircrafts attacks which were still dominating the sky.
The tanks heavy losses undergone are more due to the weaknesses of Red Army's other fields (logistic, aviation, commanding..) than their tanks' quality
bartime100 7 months ago
@bartime100
It has a lot to do with the quality of their tanks, also aircraft are the worst weapon with which to knock out enemy tanks so don't try and use the luftwaffe as an excuse for the heavy russian losses.
Though you are right that the russian traning didn't hep much to improve their situation.
In 1944 with the strategic initiatieve on the russian side ans huge operational losses for the germans the russians still lost 23500 AFV in that year.
Dreachon 7 months ago
@Dreachon
Pfff man you joke... Hans Ulrich Rudel destroyed 500 soviet tanks with his Ju-87.In Normandy, Typhoons, P-47, P-38, Tempest massacred Panzerdivisions, a P-47 even neutralized (with just one 0.50 bullet..) a Tiger 1 by shooting the engine, the 8th Army Air Force pulverized Panzer Lehr. The armour's top and engine are thin and very vulnerable, even to minus-20mm guns ... An aircraft domination reduces strongly reinforcements and logistic to support tanks. Let's be serious...
bartime100 7 months ago
@bartime100
Oh please for the love of god get your head of of whatever false info your reading from and get real proper material.
Reasearch done by the British and US following Normandy showed that aircraft were the poorest weapon for atatcking tanks, rockets had less than 4% chance of knocking out an enemy tank.
During Operation Goodwood the 2nd Tactical Air Force and 9th USAAF claimed 257 and 134 tanks, respectively, as destroyed. Of these, 222 were claimed by Typhoon pilots using RPs
Dreachon 7 months ago
@bartime100
In the Goodwood area a total of 456 German heavily armoured vehicles were counted, and 301 were examined in detail. They found only 10 could be attributed to Typhoons using RPs (less than 3% of those claimed). Even worse, only 3 out of 87 APC examined could be attributed to air lunched RPs
During the German counterattack at Mortain the 2nd Tactical Air Force and 9th USAAF claimed to have destroyed 140 and 112 tanks, respectively.
Dreachon 7 months ago
@bartime100
It turns out that only 177 German tanks and assault guns participated in the attack, which is 75 less tanks than claimed as destroyed. Of these 177 tanks, 46 were lost and only 9 were lost to aircraft attack. This is again around 4% of those claimed.
.50 bullets were not capable of piercing a medium tanks, let alone a heavy tanks top armour, if it knock-out the engine then it was a fluke, a one in a million chance.
Eeven 20mm lightcannons proved to weak.
Dreachon 7 months ago
@bartime100
When the results of the various Normandy operations are compiled, it turns out that no more than 100 German tanks were lost in the entire campaign from hits by aircraft launched ordnance.
Considering the Germans lost around 2200 tanks, tank destroyers and assault guns in the Normandy campaign, less than 5% were lost directly to air attack.
Dreachon 7 months ago
@Dreachon
Ok maybe. But tell me why they were obliged to move only by night ? mmh ? and how many supplying vehicles and soldiers neutralized (especially in Falaise....)
You must also take into consideration that aircraft supremacy can generaly massacre reinforcement and supplying for tanks, when this last ones have no longer ammos and fuel...
You're the only person I know (and I know many people specialized in WW2) to say russian tanks are bad..
bartime100 7 months ago
@bartime100
There are plenty of others who will say the same as I, that the T-34 is over-rated thanks to shows like those on the military channel, the T-34 tactical records shows this.
If you want to be taken serious then I suggest you start by getting better reasources and stop posting info that is false.
Even now your already backtracking your false claim of aircraft devastating tanks.
Dreachon 7 months ago
And the main difference between Russian and German tanks was that point :
German : More effective guns, ergonomics, presence of radios.
Soviets : Better autonomy, better all-terrain mobility, armour sickness, much better basical conception
One point : It's not difficult at all to get optics and good anti-tank canon. It's just very expansive and it wasn't the Soviet politic towards their military material.
bartime100 8 months ago
The Panther's canon was really terrific and indeed it could destroy T-34/85 at 1500 m with no problems.
But its effective when U are in an open area (step, deserts...) but when it's in a city or something like that, the only advantage of the Panther is washed-out.
T-34 has more autonomy, has more endurance, is much cheaper.
Russians accomplished the feat to instal diesel engine into T-34 and all their tanks. That was really an exploit and the toughest thing to do.
bartime100 8 months ago
the best tank ever in ww2 is t34/85
b14ckburn123 1 year ago
Is it any chance for subtitles? :>
sturmtiger305mm 1 year ago
They were going around pointing out all the weak spots in the tank’s defenses. It must have been a terrifying thing to face a tank with no experience, but I am told that once you know how to deal with them a tank has vulnerabilities.
For tank on tank warfare the German's 88mm & 75mm high velocity were their ace in the hole. High velocity requires long barrels so their tanks lacked maneuverability in cities, they never should have gone into Stalingrad with armor, just shell it and move on.
Zyworski 1 year ago
@Zyworski The Germans didn't have any Panthers or Tigers at Stalingrad.
jackzero99 1 year ago
the KV MG position was ridiculously close to the driver, the MG gunner shooting would disturb the driver. its turret was also not user friendly for 3 fighting crew, poor all-around vision for commander. Exhaust to drive / move freely, steering problems. poor coordination for mass attack. unhandy ammo, under firepower. Turret of KV2 couldn't transverse on steep slopes but good for invert bombs! Armor too heavy for SPG role, short & low velocity gun not for AT role, large profile as pak target.
9394JP731 2 years ago
Panter design was copied from T-34/76. The reason is - tehnologicaly advanced incline armor. T-34/76 wasn't the equal rival to Tiger and Panter. But new generation tanks T-34/85, Su-100, IS-2 was able to match.
golenkopavlo 2 years ago
T34 tank is far better than the Sherman tank. T34 is ugly but very much effective tank suited for fast offensive battle. But it was no match for the latest Panther tank in any categories. Panther tanks was only defeated by the vast numbers of T34 in combat.
AnikinTal 2 years ago 20
Panther was a heavy tank, do not compare it to the T34, compare it to the IS-2. Thee IS-2 and SU-152 could easily destroy panthers at combat ranges.
RedPower012 2 years ago
In German classification Panther is medium tank
Ilyich777 2 years ago
lol panther is not a heavy tank due to its mecanical problems in the easternfront read it on wikipedia
8900609 2 years ago
@8900609 so tiger is not a heavy tank eaither, lol
fanofCOH 2 years ago
@8900609 By Russian standards the Panther was a heavy tank. Its weight was double that of the T34 and equal to that of the heavy IS-2
RedPower012 2 years ago
@AnikinTal T34 is not that ugly, the Sherman is much uglier! the T34-76 actually is very beautiful and cute, the T34-85 looks also very sexy and the IS-2 looks like a big grizzly bear!
But the Panther is a BILLION times more beautiful than any other russian tank oever made :D
tanker1408 1 year ago
@AnikinTal
The Sherman was actually a Pretty good tank. Its reputation as a "Fire lighter" was earned early on from unsafe ammo storage. That problem was fixed with wet ammo storage, something I do not believe any Russian tanks used. The Sherman's armor wasn't that bad, in fact its frontal armor was radically slopped. The issue was the weak 75mm cannon that was fine for North Africa, but poor against newer models of German tanks. continued...
AK49Gunner 1 year ago
@AK49Gunner
Continued:
This was largely to do with the US army doctrine, which called for Tanks to act as infantry support, while a seperate group of tank destroyers would target enemy armor. This inspired US high command to stick to the 75mm gun on the Sherman because of its superior High explosive damage against buildings, bunkers, etc. The 76mm anti tank gun was not issued until field commanders stared screaming bloody murder. the 76mm had a tungstan steel armor penatrator round.
AK49Gunner 1 year ago
@AK49Gunner The Sherman was easy to maintain and repair and the US was geared to mass production. The poor ammo stowage was not remedied by the wet stowage and Ammudamp. It only impeded the fire or explosion for a few seconds. The armor was extremely bad with only 2.5 inches of flat armor on the sides. The glacis plate had 3 inches, but in spite of the slope, it had too much junk to keep an enemy round to glancing off. The gun travel lock and ridge at the top of the tranny case were bad.
pattoncommander 1 year ago
@pattoncommander
3 inchs of armor doesn't sound like much compared to modern tanks, but the Tiger only had 3.9 inches of frontal too. Soviet tanks didn't have safe ammo stowage until very recently, the T-80 is famous for the turret flying into the air when the ammo cooks off. The mean weakness of the Sherman compared to Russian, or German tanks was the poor penetration of the 75mm main gun. The Sherman Firefly was a good tank and a serious threat to a tiger.
AK49Gunner 1 year ago
@AK49Gunner 3 inches is good if sloped & uncluttered, but as I wrote, the bow design on the Sherman was P-poor. .The Tiger E had 104mm=4 1/6" frontal armor. Yeah, Russians like to stow the ammo in boxes on the turret floor..saw that in Korea, pretty crude. I only worked with E8 Shermans and M-26 for a short time, my combat tank was an M-46 but served on 47,48s .60 and 41s. Generally, turrets will pop off any Russian tank when hit...they just sat on bearings and not fastened down.
pattoncommander 1 year ago
@AK49Gunner The Sherman's 75mm gun was designed as a GP=general purpose gun so had a very low MV. The Brit 17 pounder was a Hyper Velocity 76mm and designed for anti tank, so it had a lot of punch,. too bad we didn't have the resources to up-gun more M-4s, but it was an engineerihg nighmare to fit the Sherman turret with that gun. It had to mounted 45% sideways so it could be loaded and turret rear extended for the recoil. Fireflys were only issued one to a company, so it was scarce.
pattoncommander 1 year ago
@pattoncommander
Oh, I thought I was engaging another armchair general. lol I didn't know you had actual experience on the matter. I defer to your expertise.
What is your opinion on the American 76mm and the tungsten AP round?
Do you play Video games? You should try Red Orchestra, it has very realistic infantry and tank combat, right down to shells deflecting, or not, off of armor depending on what angle it hits from.
AK49Gunner 1 year ago
@AnikinTal
Also the British 17 pldr "Firefly" gun was around for a while also, but the high command refused to use it for the before stated reasons.
Oh, and don't forget the Jumbo Shermans, which had enough frontal armor to deflect a direct hit from a German 88!
AK49Gunner 1 year ago
@AnikinTal lol american tanks was so bad it was better not to put them into combat. russian tanks was allways the best , in quality and quantity. dont mention tiger or any other bigger tanks the produiction was just to small.
nolifemerc 1 year ago
@nolifemerc The Sherman was actually a pretty decent tank for WWII. If only they had put a high velocity cannon on it instead of the stubby 75mm. The Firefly killed lots of Tigers and Panthers. The 17 pdr on the Firefly was more powerful than the Tiger 88mm and Panther 75mm. The Shermans were low maintence, fast, and easy to produce. Nearly 50,000 were produced in 4 years, compared to fewer than 6,000 Panthers in 3 years. The T-34 was only superior until early 1943. Panther was much better
jackzero99 1 year ago
@jackzero99
Was the Panther the superior to T-34/85 ? Yes but not by much.
Panther is a heavy tank and T-34 a middle tank. Despite this, their armour sickness was nearly the same (75-80mm at the front of the chassis, for the turret it's 90 for T34 and 110 for Panther).
But mecanichaly speaking, no match. T-34 was 10 so much better !!
His canon Zis-53 of 85mm (52.4 calibers) was more than correct against other middle tanks and could penetrate panthers in front at 600/700m, maybe even 900/1000m
bartime100 8 months ago
@bartime100 You're wrong. The Panther 75mm was a better tank killer than the T-34 85mm. The T-34 76 had no radio and a 2-man turret crew. The proof is the 45,000 T-34 tanks destroyed during WWII. If the T-34 is better, then why were so many destroyed?
jackzero99 8 months ago
@bartime100
T-34/85 still needed to get within 500m to have a chance of knocking out a Panther from the front.
At 500m it could only penetrate 90mm of armour sloepd at 30 degree, Panther had a better slope and better quality armour making it likely to withstand at this distance.
Dreachon 8 months ago
@Dreachon
Mmmh. It's not true , T-34 has a better sloped amour (60°), Panther 30° for 80mm' sickness. So T-34 can knock out a Panther further than 500m.
But it doesn't matter, , there were KV/85, later SU-100 which could destroy any german tank at 2000 m (excepted Tiger 2), IS-2 that Panther/Tiger could'nt penetrate at more than 500/600 m and were themselves vulnerable at 1500 m and ISU or SU152, very dangerous too.
bartime100 8 months ago
@bartime100
How do you get that 30 degree from vertical, Panther sloped at the front 55 degree from vertical so almost the same sloped as the T-34.
T-34 frontal armour is equal to 90mm of flat armour, Panthers is equal to almost 140mm of flat armour.
The 85mm using AP and APBC can only get at max at 500m distance against flat armour a penetration of 111mm, not enough to frontally penetrate the Panther.
Dreachon 8 months ago
@Dreachon
Ok i'm false with my number, i have checked it. I admit it.
But tell me please, this is a question of logic, how can you get a vertical armour equivalent of 90 mm for T-34 and 140 for the Panther ?? We are ok to say than its 75 mm for the Soviet and 80 or 85 mm for the German and the T-34 has a little more sloped armour... Your figures are just impossible and unlogical. Sorry.... Check them...
bartime100 8 months ago
@bartime100
No they are correct, those are the figure you get when you convert their sloped armour to the equivelant flat armour thickness.
T-34 had 45mm thick armour sloped at 60 dergee from vertical this equals 90mm of flat armour or 0 dergee from vertical.
Panther has 80mm of armour sloped at 55 degree from vertical, this equals to almost 140mm thick.
Type in "sloped armour to flat armour converter"in google and then click for the first link.
Dreachon 8 months ago
@bartime100
SU-100 penetration after 1000m dropepd very fast only 115mm of flat armour, not enough for the Panther.
IS-2 could be penetrate by panthers or Tiger at 1000m if they aimed for it's weak turret front, poor quality casted armour also means that many IS-2 only had the equivelant of 50 to perhaps 90mm of armour again making them easy targets.
Dreachon 8 months ago
Mmmh.
Su-100 Canon D-10S : 59 caliber ; 100mm.
Initial speed : 916m/s ; anti-tank, ammo : 18 kg.
The cinetic energy was superior than the Panther's shell.
115mm at 1000 mm is just a joke. Are you serious ?!
If you made enquiries, you'd learn that this canon penetrates 127 mm at 2000 m and could destroy the Panther's most evolved version at 1500 m in front.
So, please we can exchange but be honnest with the figures...
bartime100 8 months ago
@bartime100
The figures I use are honest, the problem seems to come in that you are using the stats for it's BR-412D which is a shell that was develloped after WWII.
The BR-412B can be used but it was a rarer shell and I prefer to use the most common shell for comparing guns, they also had a it seemed problems with producing good quality shells for it.
Dreachon 8 months ago
@Dreachon
Ok for your argument about the Su-100 amunition.. Indeed I was talkin about its best A-T amunition like I do for every tank destroyers.
But I can assure you that the T-34/85 armour thickness is 75mm, not 45mm.
The last version of T-34/76 had already a 70mm armour at the chassis front.
45mm thickness concerns the firstversions of T-34 in 1941. Since this date, the T-34's weight and armour thickness has been constantly increasing...
bartime100 8 months ago
@bartime100
Front hull remained at 45mm thick, the only increase it saw during the war was when it receieved a new turret with thicker frontal armour, this was also the only major increase in weight.
Every source lists it as that, even the technical drawings on the battlefield. ru.
Dreachon 8 months ago
@AnikinTal Don't forget the ISU-152 and the IS-2 which fucked so many tigers and panthers as well.
Nickael7 1 year ago
@AnikinTal I think the T34 is a beautiful tank
ToneysWorld 10 months ago 13
@AnikinTal
Or when bombed the shit out of due to no air cover :3
grahwo 8 months ago
@AnikinTal I'd say they're close to equal. M4 had less armor, but higher quality plate and a much higher level of reliability. Both were fast, moderately armored, and solidly armed, though. it's more an issue of producability--the Sherman was not quite as simple but still easy to make, and it was well-suited to quick flanking operations. The two were built according to different doctrines (T-34 was a massed attack vehicle, Sherman was more of a "cruiser tank"), both were great at their role.
redreaper2020 6 months ago
@redreaper2020 SHERMAN IDIOT,WAS A SHIT HIDDING BEFORE NAZIS IN BUSH!!!LOL EVERYONE KNOWS THIS GAY! LIKE EVERY WESTERN TANK SHERMAN IS THE FIRST SHIT CAME FROM USA
luka2298 1 month ago
@luka2298 lolwut
redreaper2020 1 month ago
@AnikinTal In Korea, the Sherman actually pretty much owned the upgraded T-34/85. Simple paper don't necessarily equal combat performance.
redreaper2020 5 months ago
@AnikinTal i disagree, both sherman and T-34 are shit tanks. but i think the sherman is WAY better
dividednation44 3 months ago
@dividednation44 .
Dude, the sherman is the second most stupid tank in the war, (The first M3 Lee) this 2 tank belong the USA army
The T-34 > PanzerIV > Sherman. that is all.
0puest0 1 month ago
German guy says how your worthless piece of junk shermans blow out
MAVERICKALP 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The Russians were shipped a lot of Shermans as well, and used them a lot. They were very popular, as they didn't kill their crew. They had to put guards on them so that the infantry didn't steal the seat leather.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
Why would you say something stupid like this? T-34 had slopping armor which Shermans didnt have. T-34 still considered BEST overall tank of WW2. Why would Russians having best tank of WW2 use worthless Shermans which Tigers could shoot through 6 of them with one shell? Do some research about T-34 and Sherman before you make stupid comments like this.
Chudakov77 2 years ago
Because the Russians did use M-4 Shermans. It is an historical fact. They also used British Tetrarchs.
In 1941 the 75mm guns of Pz-4 and Stu-3 could defeat KV-1 and T-34, but had to get a very good hit from in close. Early T-34s had 2 man turret, which over loaded the tank commander, lowering his efficiency.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
Keep dreaming, Panther is well known as best medium tank overall of WWII.
RabidRat88 2 years ago
The Panther had a problem of ammunition detonation if hit in the sponson box. Later US Shermans had ethylene glycol water jacket around its ammunition to prevent that problem. Gasoline had little to do with it, though there are many "internet experts" who want that to be the problem. Gasoline actually is hard to detonate, and diesel is easier to detonate! (R+M)/2= octane number!
DonMeaker 2 years ago
Go tell that to the veterans, you pathetic nerd.
RabidRat88 2 years ago
Facts are stubborn things.
It was silly to put the "white star" marker right over the ready ammunition rack, but Soviet Shermans didn't do that. US Shermans eventually didn't either, putting mud over the star quickly, and later paint.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
This is your version of the facts, not reality.
You're just another stubborn nerd who refuses to concede that veteran testimonies are worth more than any technical assessment you could make today. Quoting obscure details no one gives a shit about does not make you an authority.
RabidRat88 2 years ago
There are lots of "urban legend" or "foxhole rumor" such as ".30 Carbine couldn't shoot through winter clothing" or "Sherman caught on fire because of gas engines". The laws of physics and chemistry are still the same as they were then, so they were tested then, and we can test now, and both find that those particular rumors are false.
Prove me wrong using a range test.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
Prove me wrong pointing to an impartial reference demonstrating this theory.
Diesel requires a much higher temperature than petrol before ignition can take place.
It also burns slower.
These are known scientific facts and it applies to this case just as much as any other.
RabidRat88 2 years ago
RR88 you are right about diesel. That is why diesel engines in modern cars require "glow plugs" to ignite the fuel. Diesel requires a higher temperature for ignition. Older cars to start diesel engines used to require a short period for the plugs to warm the fuel.
logibear64 2 years ago
Neither Gasoline nor Diesel burn in absence of oxidant. Air-diesel or Air gasoline mixtures can burn, within limits of "richness" and "leanness". A antitank round hit to high explosive ammunition will provide plenty of heat to ignite either, and a hit to fuel tanks provides plenty of energy disperse either into a fuel air cloud. Gasoline has an octane test to assure its resistance to detonation. Diesel has a cetane test to assure its ease of detonation. Those are facts.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
Detonation is a process of combustion in which a supersonic shock wave is propagated through a fluid due to an energy release in a reaction zone. It is the more powerful of the two general classes of combustion, the other one being deflagration. Because detonations generate high pressures, they are usually much more destructive than deflagrations.
Quote from Wikipedia on "Detonation".
DonMeaker 2 years ago
Ignition of gasoline is easier, but if ammunition is buring, there is plenty of energy for ignition for either. There are two ways hydrocarbon fuel-air combustion can propagate. Deflagration and detonation. Detonation creates a sonic pressure wave which burns other hydrocarbons. Deflagration produces a subsonic burning, which permits the pressure equalize. I suggest you look up Octane and Cetane tests. For this wikipedia is adequate.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
In a detonation the shock compresses the material thus increasing the temperature to the point of ignition. The ignited material burns behind the shock and releases energy that supports the shock propagation. This self-sustained detonation wave is different from a deflagration, which propagates at a subsonic rate (i.e., slower than the sound speed in the material itself). Quote from Wikipedia on Detonation.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
And if there is a simple leak from the tank due to damage (not detonation from initial impact) then gasoline will ignite when running over the hot engine much faster than the diesel fuel. Since getting out of the vehicle as fast as possible is crucial in those moments, it is obvious a few more seconds to get out is highly valued by the crews and hence their preference for diesel powered engines.
RabidRat88 2 years ago
I sure agree with the vulnerabilty of kerosene or lighter (gasoline/petrol/naphalene) fractions. Still none of those is as deadly as the ammunition fire which if it detonates (as it would if hit in Panther or T-34, or early Sherman). Later Shermans had wet storage to douse such fires, but that didn't remedy the great penetration power of all WWII antitank guns, which were able to kill nearly any tank from the right distance and angle.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
soviet sherman? lol soviets never had shermans
cammanderWho 2 years ago
Sorry, they did. US sent thousands by lend lease. Soviets also used British Tetrarchs. By far most were their home built T-34s.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
send me the video of them using these and then ill believe you (good luck even with photoshop)
cammanderWho 2 years ago
Just look at German newsreels from the Ostfront post 42.
Danny77uk 2 years ago
The Soviet Union's nickname for the M4 medium tank was Emcha because the open-topped figure 4 resembled the Cyrillic letter che or cha (Ч ).
A total of 4,102 M4A2 medium tanks were sent to the U.S.S.R. under Lend-Lease. Of these 2,007 were equipped with the 75 mm gun, and 2,095 carried the 76 mm gun. The total number of Sherman tanks sent to the U.S.S.R. under Lend-Lease represented 18.6 percent of all Lend-Lease Shermans
DonMeaker 2 years ago
send me a video mate
cammanderWho 2 years ago
You need to take your medecine.
RabidRat88 2 years ago
They had thousands of them - provided by Lend-Lease.
Danny77uk 2 years ago
excuse me but im not retard what is lend lease in kind of tank wheel??
8900609 2 years ago
Lend lease is American military aid to Britain and Russia. Originally ships were provided to Britain in exchange for the leasing of ports and territories for the USA. It was expanded once the US entered the war.
logibear64 2 years ago
I dont have to dream about it, its an IRON FACT. T-34 is the winning TANK of WW2. There is no arguing about it or discussing. It was solely due to T-34 tank and heroic Russian crews WW2 was won.
Chudakov77 2 years ago
They were not very popular since the gasoline engine caught fire much easier than T-34 diesel one... It was just more comfortable for the crew, as long as they did not get shot.
RabidRat88 2 years ago
Any proper antitank weapon could kill any tank. The Tiger started as a 'life insurance policy" but by the end of the war was just an over weight immobile target. The panther was almost as mobile as a T-34, but weighed half as much again (but had a slightly better gun). Sherman was best in close quarters where the electric turret traverse guaranteed a first hit, and the 76mm gun was better than the T-34/85 gun in penetration . Cullen hedgerow cutter gave Sherman mobility advantage in hedgrows.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
What the fuck is the german guy saying?
Is this some second-hand tank auction?
How much does he want?
Savta1234 2 years ago
Yeah, they are toys actually, he asks 1.000Reichsmark ;)
Actually (also according description of vid.) he is describing 'special features' of T34/76 (and KV-1) which eventually can be targets for close combat fighting against these tanks (eg. with grenades or heavy explosives)
YevgenY07 2 years ago
The german guy says he wants 4 USD a ton. He also questions your level of education.
Kkdagger 2 years ago
German mother fucker. Where does he live?!
Savta1234 2 years ago
How about RTFD (read the fucking description)?!
TheBigTittyTwister 2 years ago
Yet the Russion women step up and killed a bunch of these assholes lol!
coquienfermo7 2 years ago
yes...by showing the german their penis's...id run too.....imbreeding...women + penis'+ beards+ a whole lot of running
hockeydudeluv 2 years ago
inbred tanks.....antfya, the germans had nothing to knock these out? Youre nutz! 88 in any application would have knocked the Rapists tanks out...Russian imbreds!
hockeydudeluv 2 years ago
in 41 only 88-mm guns of air defence could destroy KV-1 and T-34.
SuperTankT95 2 years ago
75mm guns could also, if they got close.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
T34/76 mod. 1940, that beautiful machine: looks at the speed of the turret.
marcourraro 3 years ago
T34 -75 and KV-1 was for nazis forces big surprise.They in this time havent any antytank canon for their destroing. KV-1 and next IS 2 proved stoping all enemy atack .Germans send for their destroing bombarder Stuka.
Antyfa1 3 years ago
I don't think a handgrenade will destroy a tank......try again.
brokencasket 3 years ago 9
Not destroy, but it can kill or disable crew.
Grenades usually are placed on the holes the crew has to look through.
samipso 2 years ago
Russian tanks until the introduction of Faustpatron used their tracks and spead as the prime weaponry. Try to stop it yourself especially if there is a hole bunch of them with regular infantery men on top of it for clowns like you.
rubicon51yahoocom 2 years ago
Try urban sunshine. And infantry is there to be mowed down. Grenades and mg fire on weakspots are last resort methods.
samipso 2 years ago
@brokencasket
Panther was shure better? but to make one Panther cost much more money and time. T-34 was simple, easy to repair and effective.
DoubleStandart 1 year ago
@brokencasket It can indeed, there are special grenades designed to this purpose, even normal offensive hand grenades could accomplish the feat, roll a baled charge of stick grenades under, or lay a charge over the engine compartment, fire, and alot of smoke can result from this, causing the crew to abandon their tanks.
MasterTaters 1 year ago
@brokencasket no, but it would kill or injure most of the crew.
columnsx 1 year ago
@columnsx and then you could clean the interior, get rid of the brains, and re-utilise the tank. :P
Lorre2222 1 year ago
@brokencasket Hand grenades do not destroy tanks. If used properly, they kill the bastards driving the tank. If you're super lucky, it could set off the ammunition but that's only if the poor sods inside failed to stow it properly.
PhantomRegiment 11 months ago
@brokencasket In WW II they could!
BitnikGr 9 months ago
Even my granny can destroyed kv 1 with german handgrenade thanx to this film! :D
CORE956221 3 years ago
should read deathtrap, apologies, I wont mention the name of that obscenity.
iluvflagunlaws 3 years ago
tiny little vulnrebilities, nice to think the American deathttrsp, I mean eh, toy make believe tank was not the product of bribes and kickbacks.
iluvflagunlaws 3 years ago 2
ist ja der Hammer.
theodor43 3 years ago
Haha merk ich mir
SwissPyro 3 years ago
genial!
henmoh123 3 years ago